I don't think the IQ test is as accurate as people think.

I hear you. It means something though.

Yeah

My understanding is that 100 is the baseline average

I also 123 is getting into the smart cookie zone

My dick is huge

Richard Feynman had an IQ of 120, so it must not mean a lot
Edit: It's 125 actually

I think it means something on average. I'm guessing most physicists etc have higher than average IQ.

IIRC there's also a general correlation between higher IQ and success in terms of school/career.

I've never taken a professional IQ test, as I'm pretty sure you have to pay for that. But I've taken online ones. Based on those questions, I believe it's something that you can improve on if you do a lot of math, logic puzzles, programming etc. I don't understand the idea that IQ is static if it's based on these logic puzzle type questions.

Because the people motivated to want to do well in life are more motivated to do well on an IQ test. Most likely as a badge of honor. They found that you can literally manipulate how well somebody tests by offering something that motivates them to try harder like money.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011...really-measure

That's very questionable. Most people aren't offered any sort of reward for their IQ results, yet they largely correlate with something like good grades or high SAT scores, where the reward incentive is obvious. So if it were simply a matter of incentive then everyone would essentially have equal incentive to do well on the SATs. But that's not what happens.

There funny part is most people agree that a sub 80 IQ means almost certainly stunted Intelligence and that 140+ means almost certainly gifted. It's the range in between, where most of us fall, that we cast doubt upon. Maybe as a defense mechanism.

My thing is... If your IQ is 100 and they offer you 1000 bucks to get a 140, it ain't gonna happen.

Because, as I said, the people more likely to want to get good grades or score higher on SATs are more likely to want to score high on an IQ test. The reward for good grades and scoring high on an SATs is not obvious. It's not immediate it's a long term investment in the hopes of getting a career you want. Some people's incentive to score well on SATs is the satisfaction they get from doing well while others don't really care about that.

I don't think IQ means nothing, I think it isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be.

So you're jumping to the conclusion that somebody couldn't get a 140 if offered $1,000 (not saying they could) but you don't have any valid reason to believe it. That study showed that the higher the reward correlated with better results. Who knows?

they didn't come anywhere near that sort of result in their study.

Also, you are sorta missing my point. The people who are getting good SAT scores etc are the same people getting high IQ scores, for the most part.

So who's to say that if you give them an added financial advantage, their scores won't rise as well?

IQ is by definition measured against other people taking the same test. So if you can raise everyone's IQ via incentive that would reset the scores (because the average score is by definition 100) and we would be back to square 1. See: the Flynn effect.

I do think effort does play a role, not only in IQ scores but in general Intelligence. But it's not an easy relationship to untangle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwSGB7ii2dk
https://boxden.com/smilies/olFIL9r.png

^off topic

lol^

No, you're not getting my point. The people who WANT to get higher IQ scores are more likely to WANT to get good grades and score well on the SATs. You get what I'm saying? Is it that they are smarter or more motivated?

That's an assumption. There are obvious incentives for high SAT scores, for example. If you take the SAts and don't care how well you score, you're pretty much a subpar intelligence mouth breather that deserves to work at Taco Bell. Otherwise why are you taking the test? The entire point is to get a high score.

So what makes you so sure that high IQ individuals can't be incentivized but the mouth breathers can? Your article doesn't establish that at all.

I think it's tied to it in terms of performance. If you are more motivated then you will do a better job honing whatever innate abilities you have.

You're assuming everybody wants the same things and thinks exactly the same. Not everybody is going to be motivated by the same things. I'm sure there's people that the money has no effect on while maybe something else would.

The people that are already scoring high could be bribed in to scoring higher. I just think they are already motivated to score high in the first place. It makes more sense to me that the reason why an IQ test is good at finding out who's more likely to succeed is because the people more motivated to succeed would be more motivated to score high on an IQ test rather than it being an accurate measurement of intelligence which, beyond that one test, most psychologists actually reject for a variety of reasons.

Oh, and we could get into how drastically IQs can change over time too. Or how training can have a drastic impact on your IQ scores.

You're assuming a few dollars provides an extra incentive people who score poorly but not people who score well. If effort is a part of the equation, why would you assume that people at the higher end can't give more effort?

Oh right, cause you're assuming the difference is all in the effort. Cause that gels with your "everybody the same" ideology. Even though I know damn well you've met plenty of stupid people who you wouldn't bet on to get a great score.

everyone who takes the SAT has the same goal. To get into college. If you don't understand this and you take the SATs anyway, you should be wearing a protective helmet

Lol @ the people who score high could be bribed. You just as well could say the people who score low could be bribed to take a fall.

The scores change over time cause people are getting smarter. Guess what happens? The scores are re adjusted so the average is always 100.

I'm not saying it captures every element of human Intelligence. But it is measuring something that correlates largely with himself intelligence.

Why would the money specifically only motivate the people with lower scores

Cause otherwise it's not a factor to consider

Now you're straw manning and poisoning the well.

Neither of us said it means nothing. Of course we think that intelligence levels vary. I think it's more complicated than a simple test and that the test isn't as important in measuring it as you think. I think motivation is much more important to it than you're giving credence. Even then, there's evidence that you can train your IQ. People that participate in more brain stimulating activities tend to do better in the areas related to what's being stimulated.

https://www.livescience.com/36143-iq-change-time.html

I also read this article that used George Bush as an example of somebody that had high IQ (in the top 10 percentile) and had self admitted troubles with cognitive ability.

https://som.yale.edu/news/2009/11/wh...an-youre-smart

Which correlates with things like abstract and spatial reasoning, memory, processing, etc.


...if you assume that's the only factor, and that people who score well can't be any more motivated to try, yes.

why would you respond to my post to elph instead of my post to you?

I didn't strawman you at all. You are essentially arguing that motivating could make up the difference in IQ scores. At least own that instead of copping out.

No, actually, not really. Because being motivated already doesn't mean you can't have more motivation. That's a false dichotomy. There could be varying levels of motivation and that could result in varying IQ scores.

Is elph already said, I don't think it's the sole reason, I just think it's a major factor.

When did I cop out of that? Oh, wait, because you were straw manning my position to mean something else.

Uhhh... That is my point

If you can potentially motivate everyone to score higher than they do, that changes nothing since the scores are based on what the average score is.

It does because of the point I made several times already. Some people are just more motivated to score higher on average and that's why it's a good indicator of who will do better in school and in the job force because typically they'd be more motivated to 'do well' in general. I didn't say means absolutely nothing when measuring intelligence, but not nearly as much because the sole idea that some people score higher on average because they are more motivated on average shows how inaccurate it is.

You're still assuming that you can motivate low scoring (stupid) people more with money than you can high scoring people.

Otherwise, if you're not assuming that, the motivation argument means NOTHING. At this point, if you're too stupid to understand this then I'm too unmotivated to continue to explain it again and again.

I'm not sure why you would think I don't know that?

Because they are intrinsically more motivated, are they less susceptible to external forms of motivation like bribing?

I never said that. Ever. That's where you're straw manning me. And low IQ can actually be trained to have an average IQ.

No, it doesn't mean nothing because motivation isn't an 'is' or 'isn't' thing, it's a sliding scale. The fact that you can't understand the fact that some people are on average more motivated to do well on IQ tests than others and how that can be a huge factor in the inaccuracies of IQ tests and have to result to straw manning my position and now poisoning the well with an ad hominem that I'm just 'too stupid to understand' doesn't make you right.

I've already addressed this, quit doing everything you can to stagnate the conversation and move it forward.

listen... I'm being serious... If I'm going to continue to respond to you I want you to think about this seriously, cause this is getting tiresome.

You didn't say explicitly that low IQ people are more suceptable to bribe type motivation than high IQ people. This assumption is just inherent in your argument.

If they are equally suceptable to bribes, then everyone's performance would improve if bribes were given across the board.

Since IQ is based on the average score, everyone's performance would go up but the scores would stay the same.

Fair enough.

Wouldn't pretty much anyone taking the SATs "try their best"?

No, it actually isn't. That's just the conclusion you pulled.

No, because not everybody is susceptible to the same reward which is the basis of my argument. That doesn't mean low IQ people are more susceptible to bribes than high IQ people. It means that it will have varying effects on how much it motivates people to score higher regardless of the previous IQ scores.

I'm confused on what you mean by this and why you come to that conclusion.

No.

Sigh.

You contradicted the first part of your post with the second part. I'm quickly losing patience with you.

As for the third part, if you don't understand that you just don't understand what IQ tests measure. The scores are based on the average score of the population. As such, 100 is always the average.

This should be an obvious no. Most people would try. To take it in the first place is some form of effort. Their best? I don't even know if most would try their best. Can't assume everybody has the same goals and motivation. People think differently for a lot of different reasons.

The more I think about this the less it actually means to me..

If you have the capacity to learn calculus but never do... That's not as good as actually learning calculus.

Did I say 112

I meant 120